“Widespread uncertainty as U.S. travel ban start looms”: Mica Rosenberg, Andrew Chung, and Yeganeh Torbati of Reuters have this report.

And Tuvan Gumrukcu and Khaled Abdelaziz of Reuters report that “Revived U.S. travel ban sows confusion, anger in Middle East.”

“NC magistrates can continue to refuse to marry gay couples after court ruling”: Jim Morrill and Michael Gordon of The Charlotte Observer have this report.

And Jonathan Drew of The Associated Press reports that “Gay marriage-recusal law survives federal court challenge.”

You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit at this link.

“Will Chief Justice Roberts save same-sex marriage?” Law professor Tim Holbrook has this essay at CNN.com.

“This should be interesting: a Porngate-related Third Circuit oral argument.” Matthew Stiegler has this post at his “CA3blog.”

“Canada’s top court upholds worldwide injunction against Google”: Sean Fine of The Toronto Globe and Mail has an article that begins, “The Supreme Court has ordered Google to drop a company’s websites from its search engine, not just in Canada but around the world, in a landmark case on the protection of intellectual property in the Internet age.”

Jack Nicas of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Google Must Remove a Search Result Globally, Canada Court Rules; Google said it’s reviewing decision and evaluating next steps.”

Leah Schnurr of Reuters reports that “Canada’s top court rules Google must block some results worldwide.”

The Canadian Press has a report headlined “‘Internet has no borders,’ Supreme Court of Canada says in ruling against Google.”

Mike Laanela of CBC News reports that “Canada’s top court backs order for Google to remove firm’s website from global searches; ‘We have just beaten Google in the Supreme Court of Canada. It’s about as good as it gets.’”

Joe Mullin of Ars Technica reports that “Google must alter worldwide search results, per orders from Canada’s top court; Vancouver tech company seeks to de-list a website selling alleged counterfeits.”

And at the “THR, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter, Ashley Cullins has a post titled “Google Stuck With Worldwide Injunction in Canadian Legal Fight; ‘We have not, to date, accepted that freedom of expression requires the facilitation of the unlawful sale of goods,’ states the opinion.”

You can access today’s 7-to-2 ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada at this link.

“Feds give up fight against Redskins trademarks”: Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has this blog post.

“BPI claims settlement with ABC ‘vindicates’ Dunes firm’s beef product”: Nick Hytrek of The Sioux City (Iowa) Journal has this report.

And Timothy Mclaughlin of Reuters reports that “ABC TV settles with beef product maker in ‘pink slime’ defamation case.”

“Unlocking the Mysteries of the Supreme Court’s Entry Ban Case”: Marty Lederman has this post at the “Take Care” blog.

Electronic highway toll collection — inexpensive and convenient, until it’s not: On Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion that explained, “The Plaintiffs in this case, who were assessed fees totaling hundreds and in some cases thousands of dollars after they repeatedly refused to pay tolls, contend that the $25 administrative fee violates their right to substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.”

A federal district court ruled that the $25 fee did not violate the plaintiffs’ substantive due process rights, and yesterday a unanimous three-judge Fifth Circuit panel agreed.

“Consensus Marks Supreme Court Term; Chief justice steered court to high-profile decisions that were viewed as measured”: Jess Bravin and Brent Kendall have this article in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

“Democrats fume over early Gorsuch rulings; Conservative moves by the new Supreme Court justice draw mixed reviews”: Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has this report.

“Court upholds SF law on deceptive pregnancy clinic marketing”: Dominic Fracassa of The San Francisco Chronicle has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued on Tuesday.